John Nixon was the interrogator of Saddam Hussein. And he has, surprise surprise, wrote a book about his interrogation of the Iraqi strongman. There
is criticisms that his book is overly simplistic, and I am sure they have a point.
And some people say a leadership vacuum was created and judging from the mess in Iraq and the middle east, I'd say the last 20 years has been a huge,
but profitable mistake.

Saddam Hussein’s CIA Interrogator Tells All

After coalition forces captured Saddam Hussein in December 2003, John Nixon, a senior leadership analyst with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
from 1998 to 2011, interrogated the former Iraqi dictator. The detailed account of this interrogation is now available to the public in the form of a
book, Debriefing the President: The Interrogation of Saddam Hussein.

Saddam told Nixon that the US is going to fail because we didn't understand the Arab mind, and that he brought agreement to the country. Saddam was
brutal and would be ruthless when his power was threatened. Looks like Saddam may have had a point, and it didn't help that Bush SR. had a beef with
the guy.

“When I interrogated Saddam,” Nixon told Time magazine, “he told me: ‘You are going to fail. You are going to find that it is not so easy to
govern Iraq.’”

ln order to “maintain Iraq’s multi-ethnic state,” Nixon told reporters, the presence of a strongman like Saddam in Iraq was necessary. He
added:

“Saddam’s leadership style and penchant for brutality were among the many faults of his regime, but he could be ruthlessly decisive when he
felt his power base was threatened, and it is far from certain that his regime would have been overthrown by a movement of popular discontent.”

According to Nixon, Saddam added that before his ascension to power, “there was only bickering and arguing [in Iraq]. I ended all that and made
people agree!‘” Nixon eventually found he had developed “a grudging respect for how [Saddam] was able to maintain the Iraqi nation as a whole
for as long as he did,” despite the CIA officer’s lack of sympathy for the fallen dictator.

Dude, I was telling people back before we invaded Iraq why it was a big mistake. Hussein and his family really were psychopaths as individual
leaders, but they were also keeping a larger array of psychos at bay.

We were lied to. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Out country's treasure was and is being pissed away, and there is HUGE profits being made.
Not a good situation. Obama couldn't find his --- with both hands when it comes to foreign policy, he made crap situation much much worse.

Dude, I was telling people back before we invaded Iraq why it was a big mistake. Hussein and his family really were psychopaths as individual
leaders, but they were also keeping a larger array of psychos at bay.

Oh c'mon...Strong man theory? If all that were true, then it would have
happened when Tito died, too.

We simply did not free them enough. Their major weakness was not being multiculturalist enough, the strength of shia, shiite, and kurd was not enough.
We could have saved it, by shipping some hispanics, blacks with a sprinkle pretentious progressive whites. Along with a pamphlet of how diversity is
strength.

I do not see how Iraq was worth the cost. It was a geopolitical chessboard move, but such an expensive one to get a puppet state.

Even Cheney back in 1994 was saying similar. And he was the Secretary of Defense when we launched Operation Desert Storm (aka "The Fist Iraq War"). So
there's no way anyone can pretend this was a surprise.

Work closely with Turkey and Jordan to contain, destabilize, and roll-back some of its most dangerous threats. This implies clean break from
the slogan, "comprehensive peace" to a traditional concept of strategy based on balance of power.

ETA: (facepalm) Ok, so I can't get the link to work (it's a web archive). Just do a search for "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm"
and you'll find it. It's a good read for anyone w/even a passing interest in this stuff.

Iraq under Saddam was a massive threat to Israel, with Saddam even reportedly giving money to the families of Palestinians who died in battle against
Israel. So the plan literally changed from "a comprehensive peace" with Arab majority nations to destabilizing any of them that were powerful enough
to be a threat to Israel, Turkey, or Jordan.

Note, this report was at least a year before the PNAC's infamous report.

In the first gulf war, there were scud missiles and some chemical warfare agents deployed. It's really hard to believe that ALL, EVERY LAST ONE, of
those weapons was either removed or destroyed. So the idea that Iraq had WMDs is much more likely than not. But none of that mattered. We could
topple that regime in hours, as we proved the first time. What we couldn't and still can't do, is find a way to govern those people in a safe and
agreeing way.

But I fully agree that something much larger than we have heard or understand must be at stake in the ME. Starting with Israel and ending with Saudi
Arabia. It's got to be more than just oil. My guess is they have Elvis.

Don't forget that Hans Blix and the UN (or the IAEA) searched Iraq for from 2002 to 2003 looking for those weapons of mass destruction. They
consistently found nothing, yet Bush & Blair still attacked even after that pretext was proven false.

Look at the whole middle east, sadly you need a iron fist to keep these warring tribal lunatics in order if you want something that resembles a
civilized country..

Having dated a girl with Middle eastern heritage I can say that a good number of people that reside there are bat sh1t crazy when viewed from a
western perspective, I am sure that comment will trigger some SJW cucks but hey it was my view..

Libya now totally f#cked, Egypt not much better, Syria would be even worse if Assad was removed..

Dude, I was telling people back before we invaded Iraq why it was a big mistake. Hussein and his family really were psychopaths as individual
leaders, but they were also keeping a larger array of psychos at bay.

Oh c'mon...Strong man theory? If all that were true, then it would have
happened when Tito died, too.

Yeah, who knew that destroying a country's infrastructure, killing its leaders, arming its rebels and paramilitary groups, killing 10s of thousands of
its civilians, forcibly disbanding and banning its biggest political party, and literally dissolving its military & police forces would cause chaos?
(facepalm)

edit on 1-1-2017 by enlightenedservant because: typo. grrr. i need a nap, screwing up all thread. thanks trump pssh

Dude, I was telling people back before we invaded Iraq why it was a big mistake. Hussein and his family really were psychopaths as individual
leaders, but they were also keeping a larger array of psychos at bay.

Oh c'mon...Strong man theory? If all that were true, then it would have
happened when Tito died, too.

Well it did, eventually....
What I don't understand is why nato disarmed the Christians and let the muslims loose on them...

We were lied to. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Out country's treasure was and is being pissed away, and there is HUGE profits being made.
Not a good situation. Obama couldn't find his --- with both hands when it comes to foreign policy, he made crap situation much much worse.

Keep in mind this is my opinion and I am on the outside looking in.

There are plenty of stories of how the USA (among some of our other allies) supplied WMD to Iraq when they were fighting Iran. There are even threads
about the supplies right her on ATS. Chemical and biological agents were shipped and even used against Iran and some of the Kurds of Iraq.... They
just removed the "made in the USA" stickers before use.

Dude, I was telling people back before we invaded Iraq why it was a big mistake. Hussein and his family really were psychopaths as individual
leaders, but they were also keeping a larger array of psychos at bay.

Oh c'mon...Strong man theory? If all that were true, then it would have
happened when Tito died, too.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.